Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

spacex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 508 posts

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#101

Post by mabbo »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #81

I have a genuine question, are we handing SpaceX a monopoly by allowing them to launch these satellites, or will competing companies be able to launch similar services? Will space be too cluttered for competition? (I'm guessing space is really big and that we can have _a lot_ of small satellites up there.)

We didn't hand them anything. SpaceX took the risk of being a first mover in a very difficult field and looks to have had their bet pay off.

There's room for more satellites. Space is pretty big, and with some careful automated coordination we can avoid collisions. But someone else needs to first figure out how to cheaply launch a competing fleet, and I doubt anyone will come close for years.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#102

Post by Shank »

So…we have the Space Weather Prediction Center [0] and raw data from NOAA for this exact purpose. Does SpaceX not review the data / warnings before launch?

There was a G1 warning posted until 21:00 UTC on the launch date:

Space Weather Message Code: WARK05

Serial Number: 1635

Issue Time: 2022 Feb 03 1428 UTC

EXTENDED WARNING: Geomagnetic K-index of 5 expected

Extension to Serial Number: 1634

Valid From: 2022 Feb 03 0555 UTC

Now Valid Until: 2022 Feb 03 2100 UTC

Warning Condition: Persistence

[0]: https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/homepage

(Warning citation: search for the serial on the warnings and watches page: https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/alerts-watches-and-warnin...)

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#103

Post by profmonocle »

pishpash wrote: post #77
cogman10 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, spacex stuff is all LEO. Without input it all crashes into the atmosphere in a few years (3 I believe)

And we inhale it all. (Yes, I know it's insignificant; all things start insignificantly.)

About 15,000 tonnes of material enter the Earth's atmosphere each year from meteors. I know the makeup of satellites vs. random meteors isn't exactly the same, but it's probably not concerning in terms of pollution sources, and it's really hard for me to imagine it getting there.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#104

Post by maccam94 »

vmception wrote: post #80
astura wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TFA says space junk shouldn't be a problem with the launch method they used >SpaceX deploys its satellites into these lower obits so that in the very rare case any satellite does not pass initial system checkouts it will quickly be deorbited by atmospheric drag. While the low deployment altitude requires more capable satellites at a considerable cost to us, it’s the right thing to do to maintain a sustainable space e…

Need third party analysis of that, personally

Analysis of what, exactly? The physics of the orbits they are in are pretty well understood. You can track the orbital altitudes (and failures/disposals) here: https://planet4589.org/space/stats/star/starstats.html

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#105

Post by jessriedel »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #81

I have a genuine question, are we handing SpaceX a monopoly by allowing them to launch these satellites, or will competing companies be able to launch similar services? Will space be too cluttered for competition? (I'm guessing space is really big and that we can have _a lot_ of small satellites up there.)

There is plenty of room for additional constellations.

The fact that "near misses" are too frequent is largely a result of inaccurate tracking and poor communication. (Next gen space traffic control will allow vastly higher densities.) And the fact that actual collisions are occuring too frequently is due to old uncontrolled junk, not a literal lack of room or inability to maneuver by modern sats.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#106

Post by myself248 »

vmception wrote: post #80
astura wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TFA says space junk shouldn't be a problem with the launch method they used >SpaceX deploys its satellites into these lower obits so that in the very rare case any satellite does not pass initial system checkouts it will quickly be deorbited by atmospheric drag. While the low deployment altitude requires more capable satellites at a considerable cost to us, it’s the right thing to do to maintain a sustainable space e…

Need third party analysis of that, personally

The search term "Gabbard diagram" should tell you all you need to know. Especially if you find some animated ones. Here's a particularly nice one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ijKirDjwOU

The Gabbard diagram is a way of expressing the orbital locations and decay of the particles produced as a result of an orbital collision. Note how higher objects tend to stay high for a long time, but low objects (below about 600km) drift lower at an appreciable timescale, and once they're below about 500km they fall the rest of the way very very quickly.

Starlink satellites deploy to 550-km orbits.

Edit: Oh, these were launched into a 210-km orbit, which combined with the higher atmospheric density due to the geomagnetic storm, basically dragged them back down before they could raise to their normal orbit. Oof.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#107

Post by nine_k »

Redoubts wrote: post #64
mortenjorck wrote: post #5

Of all press releases in recent memory, this is the one that reads the most like hard science fiction.

Well, "continued to work closely with the Space Force’s 18th Space Control Squadron" was a bit on the nose.

We live in the future for quite some time now.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#108

Post by politician »

sho_hn wrote: post #58
alexfringes wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the press release is lacking in detail. For example, they completely fail to disclose whether recovery was attempted by rerouting power from life support to the structural integrity field.

I believe a geomagnetic storm calls for rerouting power to the subspace accelerators backing your deflector dish, and of course sufficient impulse power to maintain an appropriate heading, not rerouting to the SIF. Please get your spaceship right. It's a technical forum!

This is why I read HN. You just can’t find experts like these anywhere else.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#109

Post by maccam94 »

mlyle wrote: post #100
Symmetry wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A Falcon 9 caries just a bit more fuel than a fully loaded 777. Which is big, to be sure, but still a drop in the bucket just in terms of transportation.

This isn't quite a fair comparison, though, because it doesn't consider the energy requirements to refine lox.

How significant are those? 2x 777 flights worth? 10? There are thousands of airplane flights every day, but only a couple of these per month.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#110

Post by joering2 »

I recently started researching into Starlink as my next (cheap) internet solution and stumbled upon these 2 videos below. The worst part for me is that once this becomes more popular the bandwidth will die down to crumble. I don't buy they will be able to upkeep with bandwidth sharing it from satellite to satellite using a.. laser beam (is that even possible to sync 2 satellites and send signal thru laser beam that has radius of 10 nm at distance of 1,000 km from one object to another traveling at 20,000km/s ?)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaUCDZ9d09Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vuMzGhc1cg

Post reply on HN